Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-25-2012, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This religious movement had a Jewish origin.

I dont see too much evidence to support this hypothesis.

They copy/pasted slabs of text from the Greek LXX, not the Hebrew Bible.

Yes, its a Jewish storyline, but the "Song of Hiawatha" does not have an Ojibwe origin.

Bernard Muller · 03-25-2012, 09:08 AM

to Gakuseidon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller
I am rejecting 1Cor15:3-11 as a later interpolation and I do not think claimed revelation from above (if any) was a big factor then (Paul may have been the first one to claim any). I am basing that on the ending of gMark and the fact that in gMatthew, the author is trying to respond to accusations that the resurrection belief was due to the fact the body was removed from the tomb (by the disciples). That tells me that "Matthew" did not have any believed Jesus reappearances to show for at the time.

Doesn't gMark suggest both resurrection and visionary appearances?

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

First I think that 15:40-16:8 is a (very) early interpolation for many reasons explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html#emptyt
But that's besides the point here.
Second, the "young man" may know like an angel, look like an angel, but does not do anything extraordinary. Maybe the author wanted the readers to think he was an angel, but he did not dare to say so.

aa5874 · 03-25-2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to Gakuseidon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller
I am rejecting 1Cor15:3-11 as a later interpolation and I do not think claimed revelation from above (if any) was a big factor then (Paul may have been the first one to claim any). I am basing that on the ending of gMark and the fact that in gMatthew, the author is trying to respond to accusations that the resurrection belief was due to the fact the body was removed from the tomb (by the disciples). That tells me that "Matthew" did not have any believed Jesus reappearances to show for at the time.

Doesn't gMark suggest both resurrection and visionary appearances?

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

First I think that 15:40-16:8 is a (very) early interpolation for many reasons explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html#emptyt
But that's besides the point here.
Second, the "young man" may know like an angel, look like an angel, but does not do anything extraordinary. Maybe the author wanted the readers to think he was an angel, but he did not dare to say so.

Again, everything that does NOT support your views are interpolated. Why don't you just dump the Bible and tell us what really happened according to your imagination???

Who would interpolate a passage that makes the gMark Jesus story more problematic??

You seem to want to re-write the Jesus story and replace it with the un-interpolated Gospel according to Bernard Muller .

GakuseiDon · 03-25-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to Gakuseidon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller
I am rejecting 1Cor15:3-11 as a later interpolation and I do not think claimed revelation from above (if any) was a big factor then (Paul may have been the first one to claim any). I am basing that on the ending of gMark and the fact that in gMatthew, the author is trying to respond to accusations that the resurrection belief was due to the fact the body was removed from the tomb (by the disciples). That tells me that "Matthew" did not have any believed Jesus reappearances to show for at the time.

Doesn't gMark suggest both resurrection and visionary appearances?

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

First I think that 15:40-16:8 is a (very) early interpolation for many reasons explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html#emptyt
But that's besides the point here.
Second, the "young man" may know like an angel, look like an angel, but does not do anything extraordinary. Maybe the author wanted the readers to think he was an angel, but he did not dare to say so.

I'm not sure it matters whether the "young man" is an angel or not for my point (I'm assuming he wasn't an angel, since Mark doesn't claim this.) My point was that Mark 16:7 implies the visionary experiences (or at least some of them) encountered in 1 Cor 15:3-11.

If Mark 15:40 - 16:8 is an early interpolation, do you think the interpolator probably thought that the apostles had visionary experiences of the Risen Christ?

Bernard Muller · 03-25-2012, 10:14 AM

to Gakuseidon,
The problem is the women do not convey the message of the "young man" to the disciples. And the author made it sound that it was absolutely necessary for the disciples to have been contacted by the women about the empty tomb, before they start to interpret anything (dreams, sound, internal voices) as an emanation of the risen Jesus. Actually, I see 16:8 as an explanation why the disciples never reported any reappearances and the Resurrection.

aa5874 · 03-25-2012, 11:38 AM

In gMark, the resurrection of the character called Jesus was NOT supposed to be a vision. It was to be an ACTUAL physical resurrection.

In gMark, Jesus was supposed to resurrect and then go to Galilee where the disciples would meeet him.

The disciples have to go to Galilee to physically MEET the resurrected Jesus.

Mark 14:28 KJV

Quote:

But after that I am risen , I will go before you into Galilee.

The resurrection in gMark is NOT about a vision.

It is extremely critical that the EARLIEST Jesus story be understood.

When earliest gMark was written NO-ONE, including the disciples, was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

Now, we have the FORGED gMark, the Long-Ending gMark where the post-resurrection visits were added and the disciples were commissioned by the resurrected dead.

It must be understood that the Interpolated Mark 16.9-12 is UTTER Fiction. The events in Mark 16.9-12 could NOT have happened yet the other Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are based on the forgeries Mark 16.9-12.

The Pauline writer knows of a commission to preach the Gospel as stated can be seen in Galatians 2.

Galatians 2

Quote:

7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)....

There is NOTHING whatsoever in the Short-Ending gMark where Peter or the disciples were commissioned or committed to preach the Gospel.--NOTHING.

However, in gMatthew, Jesus claimed he will build his Church on Peter.

Matthew 16:18 KJV

Quote:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Pauline writings are AFTER gMark where no disciple including Peter, was commissioned or committed to preach the gospel after the Fictitious resurrection.

mountainman · 03-27-2012, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What is so implausible about the idea that a Galilean preacher once went nuts in the courtyard of the the Temple during Passover and got crucified for it?

That hypothesis is not prima facie implausible, and nobody is claiming that it is. All we are claiming is that when all of the evidence is taken into consideration, it is not the most parsimonious explanation of that evidence.

The complete explanation of all of the evidence necessitates a review up until the closure of the NT canon c.367 CE.

Sometime before c.350 CE there were people who would invent a laughing crucified Messiah

They may have had a sense of humor.

Hence these 2 Nag Hammadi texts (c.350 CE or earlier) featuring a docetic crucified messiah figure are also part of all of the evidence ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

"For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death...It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I[t] was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns...And I was laughing at their ignorance." (Jesus as purported narrator).

Elsewhere ....

"we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant, but also by those who think that they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals. They persecuted those who have been liberated by me, since they hate them..."

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by The (Gnostic) Apocalypse of Peter

"He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.".

"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals. "

Solo · 03-27-2012, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

What is so implausible about the idea that a Galilean preacher once went nuts in the courtyard of the the Temple during Passover and got crucified for it?

Nothing, but that's not what the gospels say actually happened.

Vorkosigan

So what would you expect the gospels to say if Jesus did go nuts there, and in actual fact was hit by one of the stones flying his way. What if he did not manage to outrun the guards (Jn 8:59) ? Would you not expect some apologia, some fantastic tale about it ? I mean if these people really believed the heavens were about to collapse and Jesus knew about it, why would we not expect the followers preach something along the lines of what the Branch Davidians preach today ?

Best,
Jiri

Doug Shaver · 03-28-2012, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What is so implausible about the idea that a Galilean preacher once went nuts in the courtyard of the the Temple during Passover and got crucified for it?

That hypothesis is not prima facie implausible, and nobody is claiming that it is. All we are claiming is that when all of the evidence is taken into consideration, it is not the most parsimonious explanation of that evidence.

The complete explanation of all of the evidence necessitates a review up until the closure of the NT canon c.367 CE.

Sometime before c.350 CE there were people who would invent a laughing crucified Messiah

They may have had a sense of humor.

Hence these 2 Nag Hammadi texts (c.350 CE or earlier) featuring a docetic crucified messiah figure are also part of all of the evidence ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

"For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death...It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I[t] was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns...And I was laughing at their ignorance." (Jesus as purported narrator).

Elsewhere ....

"we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant, but also by those who think that they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals. They persecuted those who have been liberated by me, since they hate them..."

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by The (Gnostic) Apocalypse of Peter

"He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.".

"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals. "

Pete, when I refer to "the most parsimonious explanation of [all of] that evidence," I do not mean "an explanation giving special consideration to evidence that usually gets ignored."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2012, 10:14 AM	#115
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to Gakuseidon, The problem is the women do not convey the message of the "young man" to the disciples. And the author made it sound that it was absolutely necessary for the disciples to have been contacted by the women about the empty tomb, before they start to interpret anything (dreams, sound, internal voices) as an emanation of the risen Jesus. Actually, I see 16:8 as an explanation why the disciples never reported any reappearances and the Resurrection.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.